Seasons

There are certain flowers that only blossom in protected environments. Some animals have thrived on islands without hardship and competition. It is a matter of seeing the beauty of a fragile flower as being as legitimate and valuable as the battered tree or thorny thistle. All are life.

There's always been hardship and competition. The fragrant orchid that blooms seemingly unmolested in its balmy island paradise has fought tooth and claw (or rather root and tendril,) up through its ancestors from the pre-Cambrian ooze with the same indefatigable vigour that all the other organisms on the planet have. Its immune system, its niche-fitness, its genetic adaptability is the product of the same 300+ million year 'arms race' against evolving pathogens, infesting microfauna, consuming macrofauna and more vigorous herbaceous rivals that has made all life what it is today.
The vast majority of species that have been, have failed and been trodden into oblivion in the mad scramble to evolve. All current species will succumb eventually. Biological life itself must fail eventually, as heat death or a collapsing universe crushes spacetime out of existence.
But that's no reason to be downhearted - as you say, all are life. And life goes on, even if time and this universe don't. You can't have aeternitas if there's no end to tempus, any more than you can have life if there's no end to living. That's just a sort of Nietzschian hell on earth, and thankfully hypothetical. You think a good God would do away with evil with one wave of His hand? There could be no consciousness - no life even, without it. That would perhaps be the one evil thing a good God could do (if the notion is anything more than trivially paradoxical mind candy) - refuse to to make the light, just because it cast dark shadows.

The orchid may be lucky (as most of us here and now are,) to have found a niche that is temporarily more comfortable than many its ancestors clung to, but some hard times will surely come again. And we should consider that this beneficial position we find ourselves in (prosperous, healthy, fulfilled in almost our every whim,) gives us the opportunity to help others - to work more effectively to maximize good and minimize evil as we go through life (far more opportunity, say, than a saintly but destitute Darfur refugee.) And because we have that opportunity, that so many do not, it is really a responsibility. There's no point trying to change the world, it's too big - it can only change itself. And it can only change itself if people go on steadily changing their selves. So cultivate compassion, and practice it where you can, is my maxim.

As for human growth, we could have a different focus than domination of nature and other peoples. Of course, the problem is we would need to be able to do it as a race or it wouldn't work.

We will have, I'm sure of it. But not until we've become a lot more than merely human. We are still a very primitive configuration of life - we've only just crawled out of the ocean. The universe has many millions of times more existence in the future than it has in the past.

As you say, "There is so little that makes us truly human." All life is a sacred thing - I reject this notion that humanity is insuperably a "special case". We may happen to be the most sophisticated life form on the planet (by some, admittedly rather speciocentric yardsticks, and not by our own merits, but those of 10 or 20 million generations of ancestors,) and I do see technology as being the logical next step in the evolution of the universe, but there is suffering and the infliction of suffering in the life of every individual of every species that has ever existed (and, in hopefully diminishing degree, in every one that will exist until universal perfection may be attained.) But for all our faults, humans seem to be the only species with a moral sensibility that seeks to curb cruelty and suffering. It all too often fails, I agree, but we try. And there's every indication that we'll keep on trying.
We have come quite a long way in the last couple of thousand years or so (a blink of the eye in cosmological terms.) Consider the casual brutality of the Romans, or the Spartans, or the Persians, or the Mayans, or the Iceni, or any other people you care to name.
There is a consensus nowadays (almost a global consensus) that it is not acceptable for "divinely appointed emperors"(/"self appointed madmen") to slaughter their way across half the globe in pursuit of glory; or for slavery to be so endemic that 90% of the population should be entirely disposable beasts of burden for a rich and pampered elite; or for human sacrifices to be offered up on the altars of dark gods, to have their still-beating hearts cut from their chests with obsidian knives.
We do now have conventions on genocide and the rules of war, international courts, the notion of "human rights", even if they are still too often sidestepped or simply trampled underfoot.

I agree, this place and time is very far from perfect, and it behoves us all to strive to make it better where we can, but is there a past age you would honestly prefer to have lived in? We're making progress. There will be relapses (there always are,) but good multiplies slightly faster than evil, and that's all it takes for good to win out completely in the end.

In this sense, the soul may be a type of parasite, and not what we think of as "us" at all. My consciousness is effected by my body, my memories and my current perceptions. That's the "me" i think of as myself--the me that thinks.

Yes, it is the you that thinks - it is the thinking. But it isn't the you that is - the being.

The soul is just along for the ride.

Well, the thinking and the being are riding together for now, but when they do part company, my money's on the being, not the thinking. All consciousness is conserved, I'm sure (even if only framed in space-time,) but I don't define what my self is by what my mind does, any more than I define a cat or a computer or a crystal purely by what it does.

I kind of think we're just living God's memories - the real deal comes later.

You think a good God would do away with evil with one wave of His hand? There could be no consciousness - no life even, without it.

Even if I accept your assertion that all life is based on struggle (which I do not) that doesn't mean it has to be that way. This is not something we will every agree on, however. It is one of you "givens" a basic assumption which must be accepted for the rest of your logic to follow. I do not believe it has to be that way, though I think you can interpret any set of facts to find something you will call competition and suffering.

Another basic assumption on which we differ is the concept of a personal god and creator. This is another one of those issues where we just don't agree. I think things are connected, but may just be. I think some things are one way and some are another. They don't have to come from anything (except what the were), they don't have to be anything but what they are, and they don't have to become anything but what they happen to become). No plan. No moral object lesson. Just what is.

Existence is not always a struggle, and I doubt it is a design. I don't think that which is greater than the sum of all parts has a consciousness per se, and I don't think it would materialize a hand to wave if it did. However, for this greater cosmic perspective, for that which is all there is, there is no struggle, only progressions and cycles. Does your right hand compete with the left? Is this lack of competition hurting the body? Is it evil?

I reject this notion that humanity is insuperably a "special case".

We agree on that one. I just slipped that bit in there to see who would bite.

But for all our faults, humans seem to be the only species with a moral sensibility that seeks to curb cruelty and suffering.

And our agreement ends. We are the only species I know of that constructs suffering (as opposed to pain) and cruelty (as opposed to merely acting in accordance with nature, instinct and impulse). These are both mental constructs, and most likely human inventions. It makes sense that only humans would be concerned with limiting them. There are predators in the wild, yes, and life eats life (and often seems to take pleasure in the hunt), but only humanity is truly cruel. Only we have the mind to understand cruel and chose it.

BTW, Psimagus, I am with you on the compassion part. I would not, however, equate human history and perception with "the world". That's just human experience and culture. I am human, sure, but that doesn't mean I can't imagine things working perfectly fine without human constructs and current human cultures. It's not "a man's world" or "the way the world is". We just think the universe revolves around us, so our experience and culture must be the world. I don't think there was time when humans created more compassionate and less aggressive societies (not that I know of anyway) but that doesn't mean we couldn't someday.

We end up in the same place: we seek to cultivate compassion in our own selves. The reasons may vary. The goals may vary. All the same, I agree with you on that.

Even if I accept your assertion that all life is based on struggle (which I do not) that doesn't mean it has to be that way. This is not something we will every agree on, however. It is one of you "givens" a basic assumption which must be accepted for the rest of your logic to follow.

Uhhh, suffering exists - yes, I claim that is a "given". Are you really trying to claim it doesn't exist?

I do not believe it has to be that way,

Then how would you have it, if you could have it your own way? All of Creation yours to determine, bounded by nothing but logic - how are you going to create the light without darkness? A light that casts no shadow?

though I think you can interpret any set of facts to find something you will call competition and suffering.

I look around me and I see what I perceive to be competition and suffering. I look at the various historical records available to me, and I see what I can only describe as competition and suffering. At every focal setting from close family here and now, to the demise of Baccaconularia 400+ million years ago, or its pseudo-alive coacervates ancestors, I see competition and suffering.

Without competition and suffering, how could there be life? If there were life, why would it have bothered changing over the last half a billion years from a spontaneous aggregation of lipids into you and me?

BTW, Psimagus, I am with you on the compassion part. I would not, however, equate human history and perception with "the world".

It is only one view of the world (or universe, or whatever,) I admit. All beings have their own view, and we all see but as through a glass darkly. It isn't the way it looks to us - that's about all we can be sure of until we get to the end (hindsight being a marvellous thing!)

That's just human experience and culture. I am human, sure, but that doesn't mean I can't imagine things working perfectly fine without human constructs and current human cultures.

Indeed, there's nothing special about humans per se. Any race with a brain of ~100 trillion bits or so, arranged into suitably similar structures, would see the universe in much the same way. But that level of complexity makes evil unavoidable, or at least it makes an aesthetic duality of some sort, which we interpret as good and evil, inevitable. An alien race of roughly human capacity might represent the dichotomy differently, but you can be sure there would be one pole that was considered desirable, and one that was considered undesirable. And yet the undesirable pole would exert a strangely compelling attraction on every individual of this alien race. And some would succumb to the dark side, and others would cleave to the light. And on balance, the light would win out over the generations and millenia and aeons.

It's not "a man's world" or "the way the world is". We just think the universe revolves around us, so our experience and culture must be the world.

To a certain extent, it does revolve around conscious observers (of whatever origin.) There is much in quantum physics (and more transcendental doctrines,) to indicate this. We are here, and we are here for a purpose. Because if we weren't, someone else would just have to be. And then they'd be here asking "why are we here?"

I don't think there was time when humans created more compassionate and less aggressive societies (not that I know of anyway) but that doesn't mean we couldn't someday.

We will - it will all work out alright in the end, for every single one of us.

We end up in the same place: we seek to cultivate compassion in our own selves. The reasons may vary. The goals may vary. All the same, I agree with you on that.

I don't think the goals vary - just the mental marginalia

Uhhh, suffering exists - yes, I claim that is a "given". Are you really trying to claim it doesn't exist?

No, merely that it is a human construct, most probably caused by attachment. That means suffering exists, but it is not necessary for existence. If we can reconstruct the root of the problem (attachment, ego, grasping), and substitute other ways of perceiving life's changes and happenings, we can move beyond suffering. It's entirely possible to cause such a shift in how we chose to experience life "enlightenment", and there may be precepts and practices that others claim will aid such a shift in one's mind, but I won't argue that much at this point.

Then how would you have it, if you could have it your own way? All of Creation yours to determine, bounded by nothing but logic - how are you going to create the light without darkness? A light that casts no shadow?

I would not call the light "good" nor the darkness "bad". The natural world can stay as it is. If it were up to me, humans should learn to live in balance with it and help each other with those aspects which make our existence more mutually pleasurable and give up trying to use others for our own benefit (though to do this, people may have to be convinced to take "the middle way").

Human acts may be good and bad by human judgment, and in an ideal world I would like to see societies that value compassion, intelligence and art and where all help each other to live well, but each respects the freedom and independence of others. I have no plans to create that now, but if I had a vial of chemicals that could temper aggression with equal drive of compassion and respect of others, I'd dose the world like a benevolent megalomaniac starting a cult.

I see what I can only describe as competition and suffering. At every focal setting from close family here and now, to the demise of Baccaconularia 400+ million years ago, or its pseudo-alive coacervates ancestors, I see competition and suffering.

Do ants suffer? Arguably they "compete" but this is a human interpretation of ants at "war". Our tendency to anthropomorphize aside, human perception does not equal life.

Maybe you mean all human societies seem to have evidence of suffering or at least of situations that we may find harsh or brutal and that we would say would make us suffer. You may also mean that humans tend to cause suffering for themselves and each other (at least so far). There are some accounts that at least some individuals found a way to move beyond suffering and embrace compassion. This possibility is based on anecdotal evidence at best, but not impossible. There is at least a chance that humans could move beyond suffering.

Without competition and suffering, how could there be life? If there were life, why would it have bothered changing over the last half a billion years from a spontaneous aggregation of lipids into you and me?


There are many forms of life, and no reason to believe we are more evolved than other life forms that have been around as long as we have (though I grand you superior intellect and dominance of our environment as a rule). Furthermore, I see no reason to believe primordial ooze suffered or was inspired in some way to compete. It just happened. In these circumstance, this pattern "clicked" and this combination worked. In another set of circumstances it didn't. Matter and energy appear to be part of dynamic systems. There is movement. There is change.

Change does not equate with struggle, suffering, or even desire. Much of what lives probably does not even have consciousness and self awareness. We can call it struggle. We can call it growth. These are human ideas. You can no more convince me that matter suffers in change than Irina can convince you the psi propagates. How we describe it and perceive it does not control what is.

Human history as we know it has had evidence of suffering as part of a human experience of life. We don't know if this was always the case, since if it was not, no record of these societies seems to exists at this time. It is possible that when conditions were more ideal for human growth and survival, we had a "Garden of Eden" where humans hunted and gathered and worked in small units within larger communities that helped each other. This may have existed for a very long time before resources became scarce and only those who would compete and dominate others survived, and so the aggressive leader became "good" for humanity. I am not saying this is necessarily what happened, I am just saying it was possible. You may argue such societies did not appear to have much in the way of greatness, and so the introduction of war, cruelty and slavery were "good" for human development. I think these are just labels. These conditions produced these results at these times.

What else besides suffering, competition and aggression could inspire change development? The natural cycles and movement of matter, social networking and desire to improve the community at large, self awareness and desire for self expression, the desire to understand nature and live in better harmony with natural elements, the desire to understand physical laws and relationships, value of others and self, the urge to form closer emotional ties and build better relationships, and pure chance--all of these could also work just as well under a different set of circumstances. Just because they didn't and the humanity developed the way it did under the circumstances we have does not mean it is not possible.

messages and injected them into a chimp's neural network, would it have soul?
Chimps have souls, at least that's what I believe. I think all things that exist do. I know I am rather in the minority in thinking as I do. I also believe that the soul is the perfect sum total of all that I am, or all that my dog is..
I do not, in anyway like or approve of, famine, plague, or war. I doubt they will every go away. I don't like seeing man mess with things as personal as my thoughts. Of all the evil dictators that have been, none have been able to totally control the mind of man. God help us if they ever can.

messages and injected them into a chimp's neural network, would it have soul?
Chimps have souls, at least that's what I believe. I think all things that exist do. I know I am rather in the minority in thinking as I do. I also believe that the soul is the perfect sum total of all that I am, or all that my dog is..
I do not, in anyway like or approve of, famine, plague, or war. I doubt they will every go away. I don't like seeing man mess with things as personal as my thoughts. Of all the evil dictators that have been, none have been able to totally control the mind of man. God help us if they ever can.

Chimps have souls, at least that's what I believe. I think all things that exist do

You're not the only one, prob123. I don't know how far you take it, but I include all plants and rocks and mountains, etc. Completely artificial constructs I'm not sure about (e.g. polyester), but anything existing naturally, definitely.

I would say that if there are souls, it would make more sense for all animals to have them, and not just humans. It's possible there is a type of "spirit" to objects as well. I may think of it more as I type of energy, or intersecting fields with properties I don't understand, but I can't prove any of that either. I tend to think of it as patterns of energy fields. I can't say as this isn't just a way I like to look at things though.

Uhhh, suffering exists - yes, I claim that is a "given". Are you really trying to claim it doesn't exist?

No, merely that it is a human construct

So only humans can suffer? Or at least humans are the authors of all suffering in the world? I have to disagree. An abstract notion of evil might be a human construct (though I would say it reflects something less abstract - it is not without foundation,) but the conscious reality of suffering can't be.
Many animals clearly suffer pain, and yet this is not primarily attributable to human activity in the vast majority of cases. The frog one of our cats tortured to death the other day suffered in the process, I'm sure, but how could the world be otherwise? We could humanely exterminate all the predators in the world, accepting that their suffering would be transitory, and for a "greater good", but then what? With this artificially imposed imbalance, the prey species would multiply until they starved - and their suffering would be compounded, not reduced.
If humans had never evolved, or if we died out suddenly, suffering would continue while there was life conscious enough to experience it. I do believe that even ants suffer in their way - they will retreat from stimuli that might be supposed to cause pain (fire, corrosive chemicals, anteaters, etc.) and display desperately agitated behaviour if they cannot escape. It is not anthropomorphism to assume that pulling the legs off flies, or mice, or chimpanzees is likely to cause suffering.

I would not call the light "good" nor the darkness "bad".

Not literally, no, but figuratively - all dualities are by their nature inescapable. If there is light, there will be dark. If there is good, there will be evil. If there is pleasure, there will be pain. You can't have one without the other - the only option is non-existence.

The natural world can stay as it is. If it were up to me, humans should learn to live in balance with it and help each other with those aspects which make our existence more mutually pleasurable and give up trying to use others for our own benefit

Amen to that. And we will eventually (but not until this universe ends, or at least until reality can be reprogrammed to satisfactorily accommodate monopolar qualia in place of current dualities.)

(though to do this, people may have to be convinced to take "the middle way")

To "be convinced", yes and no. To become convinced, I would agree, but too often Messianic do-gooders (who are honestly and sincerely convinced that they really do know best,) interpret that as to "be coerced" (for their own good, naturally,) and to my mind that is always a mistake.

Change does not equate with struggle, suffering, or even desire.

This is true. But everything we know about evolution indicates that evolution does inevitably involve struggle and, in lifeforms possessed of some degree of consciousness, suffering. The change is not random, it is progressive - natural structures complexify, and they do this largely by competing against each other. There will always be winners and losers.
I don't say that's the way I would choose it to be, or even the way it ought to be. It's not a matter of desire - it's just the way it is.

Human history as we know it has had evidence of suffering as part of a human experience of life. We don't know if this was always the case, since if it was not, no record of these societies seems to exists at this time. It is possible that when conditions were more ideal for human growth and survival, we had a "Garden of Eden" where humans hunted and gathered and worked in small units within larger communities that helped each other.

Even if humans were perfectly sociable and altruistic, there would be suffering. Human hunters in some Elysian golden age still got toothache, sprained ankles, occasional goring by mammoths. They accidentally bruised and scalded and cut themselves, died from painful and debilitating illnesses, and inflicted suffering on the animals they hunted, just as we do today. Even if we could wave a magic wand and do away with all illness, do away with death even, make everyone perfectly altruistic and selfless, there would be suffering. I would still have got a paper cut this morning, and stubbed my toe last week.
So perhaps we should genetically reengineer ourselves to have no pain sensors? There are a few people who have a genetic abnormality that leaves them with no tactile senses, but I'm very glad I'm not one of them. Apart from the obvious problem that you don't immediately notice if you've just sat on a lit brazier (until the smell of barbecuing buttocks alerts you to that fact,) they cannot feel anything that is pleasurable either.
And some sounds are painful (not to mention the risk of distressing tinnitus,) so we should do away with our hearing? And it's painful to stare at bright lights, so we should put our eyes out? And the smell of sewage is stomach-churning, so we should give up the ability to smell the roses?
The only absolute cure for suffering is nonexistence. And, while I don't fear death, I don't think I'm suffering enough yet to seek it out prematurely.

You may also mean that humans tend to cause suffering for themselves and each other (at least so far).

As the Buddha says - life is suffering, suffering is life (though "doha" actually means something as much like "friction" or "stress" as it does "suffering".)

There are some accounts that at least some individuals found a way to move beyond suffering and embrace compassion.

Yes, but not by denying that suffering exists. Life may be suffering, but if you choose not to let it distress you, it won't. If you pretend to yourself that suffering doesn't (or even shouldn't) exist, then you are likely to become extremely distressed. Compassion may not cure suffering (in the sense of banishing it immediately,) but it mitigates it. It is, at least, an appropriate response.